tv Open Phones CSPAN November 28, 2014 10:42pm-11:33pm EST
this and you and i know about this. the guy that got soaked into my emotional head when i was writing this book was a man named archie budd who had been an aid for teddy before becoming a military aide for taft. again what you look for is an historian or letters and diaries. this guy wrote letters to his family every single day and the rotating antenna. he was despairing he stayed on taft and teddy thought that was fine at first and then when teddy started running against him he was torn into preview was so depressed depressed that he was beginning to lose its vitality. taft said he better take a vacation. you need to relax. he said okay i'm going to go for a while but i will be back. as it turns out when teddy announced that he was running against taft archie budd says i can't leave you now now. to have cisco now come it will
be fine. he goes to europe and it comes back on the titanic and he dies. for taft it was yet another blow. he said every time i look in the room i'm missing every single moment. those letters are an absolute treasure and he felt especially betrayed with teddy running against him. >> to me the most poignant part of the book is taft and roosevelt were enemies. after the election wilson as president. taft and roosevelt don't talk about. taft tried to talk to roosevelt and roosevelt ignores him. finally they came by happenstance in a hotel. what happened? >> what happened was when i finish the book i didn't want to end it. it was such of the trail but i didn't know so i followed them in 1913 and 14 and 15. ut i didny know what the relationship had been like past that.
i followed them in 1914, 15 and 16. people brought them together but taft says it was like an armed neutrality. in 1918 teddy was in the hospital with an operation that taft had once undergone any work undergone any wrote them a letter saying i know how painful this is an teddy wrote him back. it's often things a little bit so it just happened than some months later by happenstance they were both at the blackstone hotel in chicago and when taft checked in the elevator operator told him roosevelt was in the restroom -- restaurant eating alone. taft said bring me down immediately. he walked over to roosevelt and the whole room, 100 people dining in a broom and he says i'm so glad to see you. they throw their arms around each other and teddy says please sit down and the entire restaurant collapsed. entire restaurant collapse. there's a journalist there to record this. i said yes i have my ending and then what happens is only six months later teddy dies. he's only 60 years old and he
dies in his sleep at night and has a private funeral. taft is an honored guest at that private funeral. he comes and stands at the grave longer than anyone else and tells teddy sister i don't know what i would have done if we hadn't come together before he died. i have loved him all my life. it's ridiculous to say you want a happy ending that you want an ending that sums things up. i couldn't bear the idea of lincoln dying in the end so knowing what mattered to him so much was to be remembered after he died from the time he was young, that was his greatest dream that his story would be told. when i found this incredible interview with tolstoy given to new york newspaper yes it shows he remembered him even then. tolstoy went to a remote area of the caucuses where they were barbarians who had never set foot outside the apartment where they were living so he was excited to have tolstoy.
he said i told him about the napoleon and alexander the great but before i finish the chief of the barbarians stood up and said wait,, you haven't told us about the greatest ruler of the mall. we want to hear about the man who spoke with a voice of thunder and laughed with the sunrise. tell us about man, tell us of lincoln. tolstoy told him everything about lincoln and then said what made them so great after all not a great general not a great statesman. a greatness consisted of the integrity of his character in the moral fiber of his being. then i knew, here's ending ending for that book. your eyes looking somehow to make it to make it all come beyrle -- full circle. >> so, what is your next book going to be? >> right now i'm doing two things. i'm working on what might be potential movies about teddy and taft. they bought the rights for "the bully pulpit" maybe even a miniseries.
[applause] i'm trying to think about muckrakers as a miniseries. a ida tarbell is my favorite character in the idea of this great female investigative journalist and then the relationship between teddy and taft but for a book at this stage of my life i don't think i can afford 10 years on millard fillmore or franklin pearce. there's no big person to go back too easily so i'm bringing all my guys in the room at the same time and i'm going to write about leadership. that's really what i care about underneath it all. [applause] oh thank you. i just started it. >> after you finish that book i hope you will do a great service for america by running ask froml over the country some questions of doris. are you ready? >> host: this is the tvs live coverage of the 14th national book festival.
202 is the area code if you would like to die one and get a line here as well. we will take questions from the audience as well for doris kearns goodwin live on booktv on c-span2. 202585. 90 and the eastern and central timezones. 585-3891 for those of you in the central or pacific timezones and the mountain timezones as well. we will begin taking those calls in just a minute. co-ed in thailand. live coverage on booktv on c-span2 and we have people in line here. we will begin taking those calls as well. ms. goodwin thank you for joining us here on booktv for another 15 minutes worth of calls from her national audien audience. let's start with this gentleman right over here in line. >> i have a question. the relationship between lincoln and frederick douglass in terms of bringing the end of slavery because often we in a sense
celebrate the emancipation populace -- proclamation but in a real sense blacks were not free until they were behind the union line. so there's that time in 1864 we are now at the 150 mark when there was a temptation to have a compromise which would preserve slavery in the south and not bring the freedom that frederick douglass would want. i guess he was becoming critical of lincoln in public. so they would have to meetings that i know of. >> the meetings became frederick douglass and abraham lincoln are extraordinary. as you suggest douglass was the agitator and wanting to move lincoln further. he was that of a movement and lincoln had to be the political man figuring out how far can i go went. some of the early meetings they think there was some tension between them but eventually douglass came to have great
respect for lincoln. once he finally opened the doors to african-americans to comment as soldiers douglas played a big role in mobilizing them to come into the army. they weren't getting the same pay and the same privileges and he talked to lincoln about that there was a great moment that occurs in 1864 when the election of november is coming up in its august. you are absolutely right the republican politicians are coming to lincoln and sing to him the only way you're going to win this election because the north is so wary of this war and so many people have died is to get the south to the bargaining table and have peace talks. the only way they will do that is if you promise to compromise on slavery. you will still get the union but no way was he thinking about that. in fact he said i would be in time and eternity if i turned my back on the black soldiers.
he turned politicians out without a second thought. they thought he would lose the election. he thought he would lose the election but it didn't matter. that was his moment of conviction and then what happens is despite the way the war was going sherman takes a planned in september. the houma changes and he wins the election. and who does he want most at the second and not the second in a group that frederick douglass vecsey brings the men in the first person he spoke to what did she think of my inaugural and it's your opinion i want to douglass said mr. president it was a sacred effort. so that relationship between the agitator and the politician had its moments of tension but in the end was an extraordinarily positive thing for both men. >> another question from the audience right over here. >> hi. i'm interested that you met with barack obama and of course i know he read team of rivals. that kind of wish he would read the roosevelt book because my biggest frustration with barack obama has been his lack of using
the bully pulpit. i feel like weather was health care or syria or any other issues he seems during elections to have that ability to be verbal and inspire people and then i just miss that from his presidency and why do you think that isn't also i wish he would eventually do a book about him because i think you have a head full of interesting ideas. >> is very interesting question to ask to what extent is the bully pulpit today as powerful as it was in earlier times. when you think about it, when lincoln was speaking in the country written word was the king. the fact that he was such a good writer was very important because the speeches with the pamphlet ties and everybody would the full speech in the newspaper. if obama were in that time it would have been more suited for him. when you read his speeches they often read better than sometimes
their delivery. the teleprompter hasn't been friendly with him in a certain sense. by the time teddy roosevelt came along he was perfect for the technology at this time because he was able to speak in a colorful language that made headlines. fdr comes on at the time of the radio with a cop perfect conversational voice and reagan and jfk are the life of television. what happens now when the person gives a speech unlike the earlier times when only three networks would cover it they would break away for pundits and sometimes like myself criticizing the speech before it's half over. you're only watching your favorite channel and may only hear parts of the speech. breaking news comes in within minutes so it's harder to sustain a conversation now on an issue but i also do think the lessons of teddy roosevelt speaking simply in explaining things over and over again. when he went out on the train trips and i wish obama would god in the country more and talk in
village stations and get the message's especially on health care to explain that in the first place what it meant to the country might have taken some of the rumors about it away. so i think it's harder in this day in and age and i think that's part of it but i think learning how to use the bully pulpit and get out of the white house more. it's harder again with all that -- that take place to leave but to be out in the country is the key and that's what teddy did. almost train trips it was incredible. he would stand for hours waiting to people just so they could see their president. there's even one moment when he was disappointed because he was waving it a whole group of people and they didn't respond until he found out it was a herd of cows. [laughter] there are lessons to be learned about speaking simply in saying your message over and over again using metaphors that people understand like the arsenal of
democracy or the fire hose or the square deal in knowing you have to reach the masses of the public not just with the words they use that might sound better but maybe not stick as much. >> we are in washington d.c. and the next call comes from san diego. this is a verse in san diego. hi david. you are on with doris kearns goodwin. >> good evening. there have read all of your books ms. goodwin including wait until next year. i enjoyed it the most of all of your books. i want to ask you if you ever thought -- i my high school history teacher, if you ever given any thought to writing a history book because you have the knack of bringing history alive. it's not something that most young people today understand. thank you. >> thank you so much for that question. in fact one of my sons, michael goodwin is a history teacher and
an english teacher. so we have talked about the importance of having history at that level be brought to kids. once you capture them then, for the rest of their lives they will love history. they may not become an historian. he has done a wonderful job in our town in concord. we have all those revolutionary war sites in the literary people alcott and thoreau and emerson. he has created this experiential semester long program or he takes the kids out to all the sites during the semester long programs and they become lovers of not only history but english, even math science and art because he shows how it all connects. education is the most important thing still in this country for opportunity when we worry about what's happening in the inner cities and only worry about the fact a lot of people don't have the same opportunities that they do even in other countries that they are not getting out of poverty. education is the key and that's
only one piece of it to make people love in high school the subject you are talking about. that needs to start much earlier. america's democracy depends on it. it's the most important thing. [applause] >> i just wanted to thank you for writing your book about the brooklyn dodgers and explaining how it brought you and your father closer together. my father gave that book to me. he grew up in brooklyn and he gave it to me shortly before he died. brought us closer together so thank you. >> i thank you so much. what happened is ken burns did a documentary on the history of baseball and came to interview me. it was a lot about the brooklyn dodgers and the red sox, two teams that almost always fun but almost always lost in the end. i was on this program a lot and
then somebody asked me, why do you write about it? i never would have thought about writing a memoir. not so much to me because my parents died when i was young. my mother died when i was just 13 and my father died when i was in my 20s. i had never really gone back to my hometown. i eventually grew up in long island but the book allowed me to go back home and meet my old friends again. most importantly if i spent my life bringing presents to life to fail to bring my father and mother back to life and bring this team that we love so much, the dodgers back to life. as i have said a thousand times the way i think i love history was from my father teaching me when i was six years old the serious artist -- while listening to baseball games i could record the history of the brooklyn dodgers gain. i recount every single play of every inning. it makes you think of something
matches the street to keep your father said. i'm convinced that i learned the narrative. at first i would blurt out the dodgers one of the dodgers lost. i firmly learned you have to tell a story from beginning to middle to end. now i have boys. they love the red sox. i sometimes go to this game can imagine i'm a young girl with my father and it just means that's how you keep memories of life. i am sure you by being close to your dad and talking about him tonight he is alive again at this moment just like my parents were when i wrote that book so thank you so much. [applause] .. be the same if you hadn't written your incredible books. i have one question related. between the two crucial events
between lbj, jfk and lincoln who do you think felt the most stress link lincoln with the emancipation act or jfk with the cuban missile crisis and lbj dealing with vietnam all important in the history of the u.s.. >> whoa that's an incredible question. i think lincoln later said that >> lincoln ever said that if he had known the stress he would be under from the time he was elected until fort sumter he would not have thought he could have lived through it. the idea that the country was splitting apart, he might be the last president of the union, he had to make a decision about whether to every provision fort sumter, he could not imagine he could have withstood that pressure. i think the only reason he did was there was some deep
inner confidence. i suspect in some ways nothing quite matches that. probably that moment of the cuban missile crisis decision. he he knows that nuclear war might have been a possibility. those days probably pretty much equal some of what lincoln was. not quite as much. probably the most emotional pressure that somebody felt was lbj. think about it, we are now celebrating so much of what he did in those first years of his presidency. the civil rights act, ending segregation in the south of voting rights act providing the precious right to millions of black americans open housing medicare aid to education and public television. he had a legacy almost unequaled up to his great hero fdr and
then got into vietnam and watched in those last years of his life that legacy being cut into and not knowing how to get out of vietnam and getting stuck in it and getting worse an and recognizing that he had, indeed, left a legacy. that that pressure was at a deeper level. an incredible question. question. you did it. >> next question, over here. >> thank you for your
wonderful work. i cannot think of anyone who has greater insight into the presidency, the use of presidential power, choosing assistance. i i wonder if you have ever thought of yourself becoming a leader of this country? i cannot think of anybody who would be better. a combination of all the greatest presidents you have researched. >> if i were younger. when i was young i did think about going into public life. fe because i think still however we may disparage politicians nowadays and the dysfunction of our legislature and the washington there's a something so rewarding about being in public life. and knowing that you can make a difference for people. i love being with people so i know i would love that part of it but not having done it when i was younger just means those
experiences that you had hoped to gain over time of leading and knowing what it's like to take that responsibility, one thing that's in my head and i'd like to believe i would know what to do but i think probably at this age if i had started 50 years ago it might have been something i would have loved to do. but i think now i had better just stick to writing about it and hopefully giving advice to other people who might be taking it on. hopefully the best result of people reading these histories like when i was signing books there were some young people who came to the line who say they begin to like history through summaries. if they not only began to like history but going to public life and want to do something in this country than i will feel i really have -- the next generation. >> we want to acknowledge our public officials james billington the longtime librarian of congress right here in the front row.
[applause] and the next question for doris kearns goodwin comes from glenn in freehold michigan. hi glenn. it's this. >> caller: thank you all very much. my question is about the national media then and now. back then there was the spanish-american war and warned that teddy roosevelt was -- and 100 years later we had the iraq war and we will probably be getting back into that again soon. my question for you with the muckrakers a lot of the national media is -- for whoever's in power. [inaudible]
>> thank you sir. we got the point. >> i think it's both better and worse. it's hard to know. you are right to the tablet influence on the spanish-american war when those mass-market newspapers are coming out really did get us into war that maybe there was no real reason for us to get into. on the other hand the muckrakers that i wrote about were a very different brand of journalists and they investigated their subjects weather was standard oil or the railroad abuses or meatpacking plants with such integrity that their story still stands up today. the worry i have a twin then and now is that those stories that they wrote wrote were red and gobbled up by people, 10,000 word stories in magazines and they would become part of the conversation. today i don't know who would be supporting investigative reporters for two years as mcclure did to do that real research. they wrote it would we be reading it given the attention
span that is so fragmented today where people are not even reading the full newspapers much less magazines and they are reading blogs on facebook. i don't know we would be able to have sustained long conversations about butter issues in the public are. entertainment gets into issues and it's not just the media's fault. it's our fault. i think of spectators today but it's really critical especially now as we face this potential threat with isis. if we are going to get deeply involved were more deeply involved there has to be a national dialogue. it has to be a congressional debate about it. we have to really understand what it's all about. half of us don't know exactly what's going on. this is what fdr did so well in those years leading up to world war ii. he knew there was an isolationist sentiment in the country that he thought he had to be involved in what's happening in europe. step-by-step the educated us through peacetime draft to the
lend lease program until finally even before pearl harbor we were beginning to mobilize. if we are going to get involved and engaged in these places around the world we have to know a lot more than we did when we went into iraq. we often know more if we are going to get above the middle east with what's going on. that's part of journalists responsibility that part of our leaders but the person in the congress to get a big debate going before we flowed into something that we don't want to get into. [applause] >> thank you both for your books but also just your presence in the way you speak with the audience is really wonderful. you have looked at the president in the 19th century in the 19th century in the 20th century and now in the 21st century. for the first time we may at some point have a woman as president. what does that mean as you think
about this book on leadership? how might it be different? what are the lessons they would take and what would be different for them? >> it's a great question that i'd love to be able to think about. in fact in the book on leadership that i'm going to be working on right now i think i'm going to have a separate chapter on eleanor roosevelt just because in a certain sense she got her power originally from her husband's position then after he died and she could afford to be when he was in power much like frederick douglass the agitator constantly pressuring him to do more than he could do. he had to be political and pragmatic and once he died she had to incorporate into herself a politician in the agitator. she became a figure in her own right the way that a woman president would be now. i have been reading studies from harvard business school on the differences in female leadership and male leadership. they still talk about females
being more collaborative, more emotional intelligence at some point but the dual problem that women have if they are to competent and they are aggressive they are looked down upon. if they are too kind they are looked down upon for being weak so how to forge themselves with the strength that women have from not having been in power for long time and from being collaborative and working with families and being the smoother overs without losing that decisiveness that they need is going to be interesting as more and more women get into power. all i can say is versus a country it certainly is about time. we are so far behind the entire world. [applause] >> this is his booktv on c-span2. doris kearns goodwin the 14th annual national book festival. kelly and lost all of those california you are on the air. >> caller: thank you so much for your presentation.
the question i was looking at a target announced that i want to say thank you for the response you gave to point to go about the importance of what's going on in the world today and the need for us as active as to speak out and voice the problems that we see. thank you. >> you are very welcome. in fact it's interesting the clue or the guy i wrote about in "the bully pulpit" what he was concerned about citizenry and the importance of activism. he said in the end it's down to all of us and without citizens taking on an active role in our country we despair over what's happening in washington, the dysfunction of the legislature and tribal problems with one another. we despair over money and politics which i think is the poison in the system. if i were younger that's what i would be doing is leading a constitutional amendment to get money out of the system.
[applause] it's all up to us and we can't wait for somebody else to do it. >> i want to take it back to "the bully pulpit" for a minute. you talk about technology being a factor in president's ability to harness "the bully pulpit" lets say and what occurs to me that the last democratic president is that they were so brilliant in their campaign in harnessing "the bully pulpit" and had such a difficult time as president is doing the same thing. why do you think that is? is easy to say it's much easier to run a campaign than it is to rule but how was it that people who seem so proficient and brilliant at it as they are campaigning for office seemed to lose that ability completely want to get into office? >> it's an important thing to try to understand. part of it is that when you are campaigning you get energy back from the people, and so it's not
just a question of you saying things. you are feeling vibrations from the people and what happens is when they get into the white house they get too cordoned off. they see people but they don't have that same energy that comes from seeing them every day the way they do in a campaign. then they get in a teleprompter in the teleprompter is a pretty cool device. people like reagan who had been an actor before knew exactly how to do it to make it seem like he was talking just like fdr could do on the radio. most of them i think i feel compelled to read from a real script because they are so afraid they might say something wrong. if they say one wrong thing a gaffe becomes the thing that everybody talks about. it means the spontaneity is lost to the slayer during a campaign. it's homeless like they have a girdle on them when they speak before a teleprompter and they lose some of that naturalness which is again why i think those
addresses from the oval office much as they may be necessary at times it would be so much better if the president got out and they were on trains and the speeches are given in front of people. even when fdr gave his fireside chats when it was just a microphone he is talking in front of you people there so he could pretend he was actually talking to them even though he was talking to the people in their living rooms. so that i think somehow they have to keep that vital connection with the country and the white house still has become too insulated from all of our recent presidents other than their campaigning. i think maybe that's part of a difference. besides you are right it's easier to promise and a campaign than to make decisions and have to explain them when there are people that don't like you etc. etc. but there's something about losing their connection to the public. that's why lincoln was so great. every morning he had people come in your ordinary people and they could talk to him about whatever they wanted to.
after a while his secretary nicollet and hey said we don't have time for these ordinary people. he said he were ron beazer might public opinion bats. did i forget the popular assemblage from which i come i will lose my strength. i think that's what they lose in the white house. when they lose that they lose their ability to communicate the same way they did when they were on the road. >> jim is calling from newport news virginia. jim muir on the air. >> what was the most in fascinating thing you learned about abraham lincoln? >> i guess i knew that he was a great statesman but this isn't a thing. i don't think i realized what a great politician he was. that was the great pleasure in seeing how he was able to deal with people, seeing how he was able in the middle of a tough cabinet meeting to reach over and tell a funny story and make people laugh, how he sensed the
mood of the country and sense what was happening with a great sense of timing, knew when to do what. i mean those where political instincts that somehow when you see him you think of him as this wouldn't figure because of the pictures. in those days when you take pictures they can't even smile because they are clamped to a vat. their head of clamped to a chair and i had no idea how funny he would be. i had no idea how much i'd enjoy laughing with him every day. we know he have that sad temperament but i think what was so pleasing was to hear those stories that he would tell over and over again that he would laugh so hard that he would be convulsed with laughter and so would the people. those instincts, i remember once when i was on colbert or stuart and i said to them and it's true if he were alive today he could be on with them one-on-one and he would be that quick. he would be that funny and i would not have guessed that
before he started. seeing that sense of humor and laughter is such an extraordinary him emotion. they say it makes people money and it makes them last longer. lincoln had that side of him that i wasn't aware of it was pretty great. >> was passed just as vigorous as teddy roosevelt in his trust busting? >> yes, taft was more vigorous than teddy and his trust busting. taft really did believe that bigness itself was a problem. teddy only felt that you should bust the corporations that were not living by the rules of the game but he didn't think ms is one of the debates where having today that fitness alone was a problem unless they were using unfair or unethical means to gain their problem as monopolies. once taft came in he busted more trust than teddy did. he had more lawsuits than teddy did. he believed in the importance of
keeping small business and the vitality of the business world going by not letting lords -- large corporations swallow up too much and i don't think has been given enough credit for that side of him. that was a very strong part of him. >> the next question comes from diane in walnut creek california. go ahead diane. >> caller: hi doris. i want to thank you for "the bully pulpit" and i have a lot of reading to catch up with. i love you so much and i have to read everything ever written. my questions about taft. it was fascinating and i thought it was sad in a way that he was so strong that he prepare an attack from doing what he loved to do and what he would have been so very good at. have you made any personal judgments about her? >> is so interesting that you ask about nelly because i think
she's one of the more intriguing first ladies i have read about or learned about. here is a young girl growing up in cincinnati who has dreams when she is young of having her own ambitions realized and get her brothers go to harvard and yale and her parents tell her she is supposed to come out in society. even then she just loves going to the local bars and talking to working-class people and wanting to do something herself. she becomes a teacher and think she will never get married because she wants to have the sense of life. she was just born too early in a way. but then she meets young will taft and falls in love with him and knows that she will be its partner because he tells her, i need you. she is stronger in some ways than he. she certainly loves politics more than he does in your question will rightly suggests that certain times he was offered a job on the supreme supreme court which he wanted ever since he was a child in a way that at first he couldn't leave the philippines. he felt he had too much duty
there and he knew he was in line for the presidency what she really wanted so he turned those jobs down and did become a political candidate more probably in some ways to please her and to please teddy roosevelt than himself and i was part of the problem. but then sadly you wonder what would she have become as first lady had she not had a stroke months into the presidency because she already started doing things for working-class people. she brought the cherry blossoms to washington. she opened up potomac park for people who become for concerts at night free and be able to mix with different groups. she had great thoughts for what she would be a public person. though never had been on healthy suffered a terrible stroke within months. she was never able to speak in a connected sentence again and when i think about what happened to taft's presidency is not simply that he wasn't was in the public leader or he didn't speak to the public and use the bully bully pulpit buddy love this
woman so much that he spent hours with her trying to teach her how to speak again so she could be that public perceptions and say glad to see you, happy you are here. it shattered his entire presidency without question. luckily for taft much later in 1921 he does get appointed supreme court chief justice in the last decade of his life he is probably happier than he has been before. he said he had forgotten he was president and nelly realized in those last years that this is what he wanted. it not i i think she honestly thought he would be great at it without absorbing fully that unless you love that job, presidency is hard enough. it will be a rough time. finally he becomes a respected and beloved justice of the supreme court >> thank you for answering
these questions. you already touched on this quite a bit. you talked about how teddy roosevelt and other presidents were able to harness the media. i was wondering what it was about teddy roosevelt's time as president that led to such a growth in investigative journalism and in addition to that i was wondering what you thought in our current time we see media democratizing, but to the same time and undermining, how we keep investigative journalism alive and also how might leaders harness the new media in order to reach the people.
>> are really important question. what happened at the turn-of-the-century, a lot of people who went into journalism were already being affected by the reform in churches, the academic world. there there was a common sense that something had to be done about the problems of the industrial order. they they came from a place where they wanted to have an impact. and then once you get a a group of journalists like there were at this one magazine, then more magazines want to do it. it was in some ways the golden age of journalism, but this group is lionized.
and there and there are people who go in with that desire and, in some ways even though i talked about the diminishing attention span,, but also a platform for people that allow there stuff to get out there with less cost and can reach more people just as long as you have the integrity. and we do have places that are doing these things. i just think we need a lot more of it and the credibility that when people read these stories the facts are such that you can't just look at them in a partisan way. it has to be that hard hitting. you could not deny whether they were producing. >> joe, staten island, new
york. [inaudible question] >> i'm sorry about that. we will go to this young lady over here. >> thank you. i am a real investigative journalist, but i am so happy. you are being tag teamed accidentally. everyone is a journalist. every moment is a potential public embarrassing moment. the theft of what we create. i would love to have you opine on that. >> i wish i could, but i'm not sure i know what you mean. >> reproduced overseas. loss of income.
infringement of your right of publicity and privacy. >> no question they we will have to keep up with the times. so much simpler to protect. when they get into other languages we don't even no that they are their. and i don't know enough about the answer, but offers are banding together and all sorts of ways. they need to no more than i do. i will listen to you. >> her publisher's simon & schuster. next question. >> indeed, simon & schuster
today, the paperback edition is not even coming out for a couple of weeks. its first baptism. >> good evening, and thank you for being gracious with your time. what would be your central theme and why? >> i guess one of the reasons why, i need a distance of time. i need to to no the memoirs of the people working with him, see the c wrote, put in perspective where the healthcare thing will be 20 years from now, understand more about winding down wars i cannot see it at the
moment which is the only reason why except for my relationship with lbj, i i have not been able to write about anybody recent. if i were to live a couple of decades from now it would be a fascinating time to write about. obviously no matter what the fact that we broker that barrier will be forever a shining moment in our history. i know him somewhat well. a series of historians dinners that we do once a year. doug brinkley. and it has been fun to watch him absorb those lessons of history. so as a person i have read
his autobiography, which is extraordinary. it will have to be some younger historian looking back 20 years from now that we will capture him fully. >> john is calling in from san diego. >> good afternoon. regarding growing up in brooklyn and your love for the great brooklyn dodgers. as you no, jackie robertson, and i don't think their will be anyone beyond him. .. i am wondering if you would think of that subject but i think you would be the person to do that. >> no question he was like you are on the brooklyn dodgers. i would like to believe it was because i was a young civil
rights advocate but i think it was more when i was five or six years old that he would get on race and steal second and then he would steal third and steal home and completely rattled the other pitchers. he was such an exciting vital player. in fact all of my childhood i kept wanting to get his autograph. i never could get it. you guys get them at the park in those days. you could pay for them but you had to wait in lines in his line would be long. finally when i was in all awesome -- adolescent i brought my autograph book for him. in those days women will remember we have these stupid autograph books where it was say i will love you until niagara falls or cherish you until rubber tires. if he signed a book you would look like one of my intimate friends. i got to the line and instead he started reading these things. i thought i would die. in keeping with the sentiment of the book he wrote keep your
smile a long long while, jackie robinson. anywhere -- anyway years later i was able to get it on our roosevelt award to rachel robinson and his widow at hyde park and to tell her the story of my crush on her husband in the story about the autograph and it seemed like it had come full circle. i do think he is an extraordinary public figure and i think there have been some good biographies on him but i thinking possibly in my book on leadership in addition to dealing with what are the traits these people have in common how do they do what they did did how did they knowledge the era, how did they stay close to the country, how did they communicate, how did they build teams etc. i might have a chapter on not only eleanor roosevelt but on jackie robinson. they are everything i've looked in my whole life. >> do you still have that autograph? >> i can't even blame my mother because my mother died before
these autographs and after my father died everything had been at his house. i was in college and i didn't come and get it all. not only that but all of my baseball cards are gone. i had all the brooklyn dodgers. you always say you blame your mother and i can't. i have to blame myself. >> it looks like will conclude with this young man over here. >> i would be glad to. >> the question would like to ask you is why do you think that fdr ran for a third term even as he was considering a return? >> absolutely interesting. i've just been thinking about why did fdr ran for his third term. i think by the end of his second term had there not been war in europe he would not have run again or even if he might have wanted to stay in office he too loved it just like teddy roosevelt did. somebody asked him once why would anyone want to be president but it's so hard and you have to make all these decisions. he said what do you mean? everybody should want